United States of America v. Eric Shawn Bradley, a/k/a E

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7242
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC SHAWN BRADLEY, a/k/a E,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00240-JFA-1)
Submitted: May 12, 2021 Decided: May 26, 2021
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Shawn Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eric Shawn Bradley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate
release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). The district court noted that Bradley had
exhausted his administrative remedies and assumed, without deciding, that he stated
extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Although the district court improperly applied the Sentencing
Guidelines’ policy statement applicable to motions filed by the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(a), p.s. (2018), “we are not
limited to evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support its decision, but
may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.” United States v. Ali, 991 F.3d 561,
571 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted); Kibble, 992 F.3d at 331. Our
review of the record reveals that the district court thoroughly considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors and determined that relief was not warranted under the circumstances in
Bradley’s case. See United States v. High, __ F.3d __, No. 20-7350, 2021 WL 1823289
(4th Cir. May 7, 2021). We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion for compassionate release. See Kibble, 992 F.3d at 332.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny Bradley’s motion for the
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --